Repository navigation
Make MetaDataProtoEditor reject renaming record types with indexes declared via the (field).index extension - #4715
Open
robert-brunel wants to merge 2 commits into
Open
robert-brunel wants to merge 2 commits into
robert-brunel wants to merge 2 commits into
Conversation
robert-brunel
force-pushed
the
apple/robert-brunel/renameRecordTypes-5
branch
from
October 6, 2026 17:41
bd01733 to
d10c4fc
Compare
alecgrieser
force-pushed
the
apple/robert-brunel/renameRecordTypes-5
branch
from
October 7, 2026 15:51
d10c4fc to
2447414
Compare
robert-brunel
force-pushed
the
apple/robert-brunel/renameRecordTypes-5
branch
from
October 9, 2026 17:42
2447414 to
aad26b2
Compare
robert-brunel
changed the title
MetaDataProtoEditor reject renaming record types that are missing from the record type listMetaDataProtoEditor reject renaming record types with indexes declared via the (field).index extension
robert-brunel
force-pushed
the
apple/robert-brunel/renameRecordTypes-5
branch
from
October 9, 2026 18:47
aad26b2 to
fa82b4c
Compare
robert-brunel
force-pushed
the
apple/robert-brunel/renameRecordTypes-5
branch
from
November 3, 2026 13:10
fa82b4c to
8d63cb3
Compare
robert-brunel
force-pushed
the
apple/robert-brunel/renameRecordTypes-5
branch
2 times, most recently
from
November 9, 2026 13:29
90dee66 to
5899aea
Compare
robert-brunel
force-pushed
the
apple/robert-brunel/renameRecordTypes-5
branch
from
November 9, 2026 14:10
5899aea to
9bf0ec1
Compare
Base automatically changed from
apple/robert-brunel/renameRecordTypes-4
to
main
November 9, 2026 14:37
robert-brunel
force-pushed
the
apple/robert-brunel/renameRecordTypes-5
branch
from
November 9, 2026 14:37
9bf0ec1 to
9f0c2f8
Compare
…that only the `(field).index` extension declares With this change, `renameRecordType()` and `renameRecordTypes()` now throw a `MetaDataException` if a `RECORD`-usage record type has an index that is declared through the `(field).index` extension (or the deprecated `(field).indexed` alternative) but not listed in `MetaData.indexes`. Previously, both methods would allow renaming such a record type, but that would essentially turn the index into a different index whose existing entries would no longer be found. Resolves #4733.
robert-brunel
force-pushed
the
apple/robert-brunel/renameRecordTypes-5
branch
from
November 9, 2026 15:20
9f0c2f8 to
f40d1ec
Compare
robert-brunel
marked this pull request as ready for review
November 9, 2026 15:22
ScottDugas
requested changes
Nov 9, 2026
ScottDugas
approved these changes
Nov 10, 2026
This branch has not been deployed
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
With this change,
renameRecordType()andrenameRecordTypes()now throw aMetaDataExceptionif aRECORD-usage record type has an index that is declared through the(field).indexextension (or the deprecated(field).indexedalternative) but not listed inMetaData.indexes. Previously, both methods would allow renaming such a record type, but that would essentially turn the index into a different index whose existing entries would no longer be found.Follow-up to #4536. Resolves #4733.